House Rules, Rulings, and Sage Advice

[Easy_Lee]

A lot of discussions use the terms house rule and ruling. Sage advice gets thrown around on these forums as well, sometimes listed under either heading. We've had a few arguments, often off-topic, over which term applies in a given situation. It's clear there is a problem.

RAW and RAI don't seem to cut it, since people use these terms even in situations where they don't apply. For example, someone might say that RAW athletics doesn't apply to anything not listed under athletics, when in reality that would be a DM ruling because it isn't specified. Similarly, RAI is often mistaken for RAW in cases where the rules are unclear but a sage ruling exists.

This thread should spark a discussion that, I hope, will clear the air.

I'll start with a definition of terms, from web research:

Rule: RAW including errata, limited exclusively to what is written in the updated books.
House Rule: a rule applying only in a certain location, or at a certain table. This definition is general and applies outside D&D.
Ruling: rule arbitration, meaning interpretation of the existing rules. 4e contrasted this with house rules, implying that rulings and house rules are not the same.
Sage advice: a combination of rulings and rules clarifications from WotC staff.
Some sage advice is plain rules, meaning that a DM is creating house rules if they don't follow it. Example: the Dueling fighting style works even if you have a shield in the second hand. A DM ruling differently would be house ruling.

Some sage advice is rulings. Example: Great Weapon Fighting Style only lets you reroll 1's and 2's on the weapon die, not all dice related to the attack.

So, what is the difference between a ruling and a house rule?

If the DM interprets a rule a certain way but doesn't change it, that's a ruling. Example: a DM gives an improvised weapon the same attributes as the weapon it most closely resembles, such as treating a pitchfork as an improvised spear.

If a DM rules on something that the listed rules don't specify, that's also a ruling. Example: what do I roll, if anything, to swing from a chandeli-hi-hier?

If the DM makes a rule that contradicts an existing rule, that's a house rule. Example: a DM allows the Dueling fighting style to apply to versatile weapons used with two hands.

What does sage advice have to do with anything?

Some sage advice includes references to rules that answer questions unambiguously: these are rules. Some sage advice says how the sage would rule a situation, or says what is intended to happen: these are rulings.

But are sage rulings the same as regular rules?

Since they come from the official source, sage rulings are also RAI. We might call sage rulings intended rulings.

In conclusion, I think we should use the following terms

Rule for RAW
House rule only for contradictions to RAW
Ruling for DM fiat / ask your DM situations
Intended ruling Official Ruling for RAI / Sage Advice


What does the playground think?

[KorvinStarmast]

I'd like to point out that before the internet, the Dragon Magazine ran a sage advice column that took in player and DM questions and answered them. The general theme was to better clarify rules and edge cases.

There was one I remember that was answered by a dev that called the column "rules you can use" in that he said right out "these answers are official" but I am sorry that I can't find the file that I think that e-version is in, and my box of old Dragon Mag articles does not have that article in it.

(I never needed Sage Advice as a point of reference, since I didn't worry too much about rules lawyering: it wasn't a thing at my tables, and we had fun. Any rule thing was "what about this?" got a quick ruling then we play on. We afterwards often discussed details and maybe changed htings After Play was done. )

[qube]

Back in the day, when these terms were first invented, this was the terminology

RAW
Rules as written
what is written in the books
what is written in the errata's
if it's not written, then it's not part of RAW

RAI
Rules as intended
Rules as written, overwritten by
Comments of the developers (as they can clarify what they intended), and
Sage advice, as this is the official channel on how the rules "should" (or are intended to) be used

RAIT / RAIIT
Rules as I Interprete them
your own personal interpretation of the rules
anything that is not explictly mentioned in RAW & commented on by devs/sage advice.
RAIIT can't contradict RAW/RAI
a term less useful for players, and more for DMs, as, at the end of the debate, it's still the DM's interpretation that counts.

RAITAYCPIWN
Rules as I interprete them and you can't prove I'm wrong, nya.

"the not quite catchy acronym" as it was refered to by the person who coined it.
A term used in TO (Theoretical Optimalisation), noting the idea that everything is allowed (even if any sane DM would forbid it), as long as it's not contradicted by the rules (hence, only usable in Theoretical Optimalisation)


Houserule / Rule zero
Whatever you want - even if it contradicts RAW/RAI.

RAF
A special mention to RAF, which isn't as old as the others, but still sometimes refered to;
Rules As Fun
Added Houserules to increase the fun at the table.

[Millstone85]

RAIIT can't contradict RAW/RAIRecent discussions have shown that we are now in the age of the death of the author. Sage Advice can provide us with one developer's interpretation of the rules, and that is just their RAIIT which doesn't hold any more weight than a DM's RAIIT. The RAW can only be quoted and the RAI remains inaccessible, looking down on us all from the heavens.

[Easy_Lee]

I think the main point of contention is whether a ruling that contradicts RAI is a house rule, or more accurately a house ruling. Calling it that implies that it isn't the normal ruling, which in turn implies that RAI is the normal ruling.

But this also hinges on people knowing the RAI. In cases where RAI isn't stated, I think a lot of us tend to assume we know more than we do about WotC's intent.

[KorvinStarmast]

Recent discussions have shown that we are now in the age of the death of the author. Sage Advice can provide us with one developer's interpretation of the rules, and that is just their RAIIT which doesn't hold any more weight than a DM's RAIIT. That is your opinion, not an unassailable fact.
The RAW can only be quoted and the RAI remains inaccessible, looking down on us all from the heavens. Not if you can read. We already know that you can use the internet.

[Millstone85]

That is your opinion, not an unassailable fact.That's the spirit! :smallbiggrin:

There is my opinion, your opinion, some other member's opinion, Mike Mearls' opinion, Jeremy Crawford's opinion, and well that's all just, like, opinions, man.

The reason I am not writing this in blue is because it could be the sad truth.

[qube]

Recent discussions have shown that we are now in the age of the death of the author.I humbly disagree. The argument that just because the John wrote 'beatle', dispite him afterwards explaining he meant the bandmember, we should consider the text means insect as well, is nonsense - and only made by people who presumed it meant insect first and would rather sell their soul then admit they might be wrong.

When you chose to interprete the rules in contradiction to what you know the intent is of the rule, then what you're doing has as much value to a discussion as a house rule has.

[KorvinStarmast]

That's the spirit! :smallbiggrin: Well, we ought to have fun with this thread, :smallbiggrin: since the "what's an attack" thread is ... well, I'll not go there. Hopefully this thread will be productive.

[Easy_Lee]

I humbly disagree. The argument that just because the John wrote 'beatle', dispite him afterwards explaining he meant the bandmember, we should consider the text means insect as well, is nonsense - and only made by people who presumed it meant insect first and would rather sell their soul then admit they might be wrong.

When you chose to interprete the rules in contradiction to what you know the intent is of the rule, then what you're doing has as much value to a discussion as a house rule has.

Death of the Author is a little more complex than that. It's the idea that an author's intentions and biographical facts (the author's politics, religion, etc) should hold no weight in determining an interpretation of their writing. This is not to be confused with post-modernism, which holds that all interpretations of a thing are equally valid. Death of the Author doesn't even suggest infinite interpretations. It merely says the author doesn't get to decide the one true interpretation.

It's a useful idea for literature, especially in critique and study. It's unclear whether it should apply to game rules. On the one hand, it allows more freedom. On the other, it can confuse players as every table is playing a different game. As most of you probably know, that last part bothers me, and is a big part of the reason why I wish 5e's rules were more consistent and clear.

But we know for sure that WotC doesn't go unchallenged. Most tables I've played at don't perfectly follow every intended ruling or even every rule. From what I can tell, this seems to be the default.

[Arcangel4774]

Recent discussions have shown that we are now in the age of the death of the author.
The school of resentment thanks you.

But this does bring up a good point. The word of Mearls or Crawford don't hold nearly the weight they once would. When clearly unbalanced things exist where the rules are clear, we feel we can do better.

[Easy_Lee]

But this does bring up a good point. The word of Mearls or Crawford don't hold nearly the weight they once would. When clearly unbalanced things exist where the rules are clear, we feel we can do better.

Now that's interesting. Do you suppose that, in trying so hard to balance 5e, WotC made the imbalanced bits stand out even more to players? Or is this just modern gaming culture? Or something else?

[qube]

It's a useful idea for literature, especially in critique and study. It's unclear whether it should apply to game rules. On the one hand, it allows more freedom.(You are free to chose not to follow the rules of course - but) considering the direct intent of specifiying and writing down the rules is not to have freedom*, you pretty much have your answer.

*: When following the rules you don't chose which die you roll an attack roll with. The point of the rule is that you use a d20.



But this does bring up a good point. The word of Mearls or Crawford don't hold nearly the weight they once would.
And perhaps that the problem. All these terms are from an era when there was a problem, and the dev said X, that it was X.

This new wave of "we know it better then the devs" might be edgy and all that - but in the end, it doesn't help discussions. When you got a question concernting something:
rules say X (RAW)
the dev says this is intended to mean X' (RAI)
there are still some unclarities to what the devs say, so I think this means X" (RAIT)
but in my games we do Y (homebrew)
whatever you then decide for your game is up to you - but for a third party to argue that you shouldn't do X', or that X' somehow hold no weight, or only the same weight as any other oppinion in the matter, is nonsense.

Why would RAW be more infallible then the people who wrote it?

[Easy_Lee]

Why would RAW be more infallible then the people who wrote it?

It's pragmatic. As we all know, keeping up with errata is difficult by itself. Keeping your book updated with errata (choose your method) is more difficult. Keeping up with sage advice is more difficult still. Keeping your book updated with errata and sage advice...well, I'm not sure that there's even one person out there who does this. I think you would need a binder.

It's more convenient to adopt a RAW-only mindset, or RAW + errata. We either have the book in its original form, or we have some modifications but nothing too crazy. That's doable. Convenience is no minor thing.

[smcmike]

Not all of this terminology is very helpful.

RAW is simply what is in the book, with errata. If you say "the RAW say X," X had better be a quote from one of those sources.

This means that citing RAW is only useful in order to correct misconceptions about what the book actually says, or as evidence to support a particular interpretation of the rules. That interpretation is not RAW, though, no matter how closely it follows from RAW, and claiming that it is only causes confusion.

The best practice is to simply cite your source, and drop the term "RAW" altogether. The RAW doesn't say X, PHB 164 says it.

RAI or the Rules as Intended or Intended Rulings are even worse. Again, just cite your source. You don't need to call it anything other than what it is. If your interlocutor isn't interested in what Sage Advice has to say, you aren't going to change any minds with an acronym.

The dividing line between a house rule and a ruling may be useful, depending on the table. Calling something a house rule is a clear signal that you are aware that it may contradict other sources, such as RAW or Sage Advice, and that, to the extent that the rule is negotiable, it should be negaotiated on terms other than those sources. Calling something a ruling implies that that citing RAW or Sage Advice might be pertinent to the discussion.

[Easy_Lee]

Calling something a house rule is a clear signal that you are aware that it may contradict other sources, such as RAW or Sage Advice, and that, to the extent that the rule is negotiable, it should be negaotiated on terms other than those sources. Calling something a ruling implies that that citing RAW or Sage Advice might be pertinent to the discussion.

Inherent to your post is the assumption that any ruling that agrees with the text but disagrees with sage advice is a house ruling. Like I said earlier, I think that's the primary point of contention. That's why I proposed we use the term intended ruling to address this. RAI seems to have failed, as I see the term thrown around even when there has been no official ruling on the question.

Actually, official ruling may be a better term.

As far as including page numbers and direct sources, that's great when one has one's book handy. I usually post from mobile. It's hard enough for me just to format my posts.

[smcmike]

Inherent to your post is the assumption that any ruling that agrees with the text but disagrees with sage advice is a house ruling. Like I said earlier, I think that's the primary point of contention. That's why I proposed we use the term intended ruling to address this. RAI seems to have failed, as I see the term thrown around even when there has been no official ruling on the question.

Actually, official ruling may be a better term.

As far as including page numbers and direct sources, that's great when one has one's book handy. I usually post from mobile. It's hard enough for me just to format my posts.

I was trying to focus on context. I don't think "house rule" or "ruling" have any inherent usefulness outside of specific contexts. If a DM says "this is my house rule" or "this is how I rule on this," that might give you different ideas of where he is coming from. These terms are less useful for forum discussions, I think, though I'd be happy to see an example where they are meaningful.

If you don't have page numbers and direct sources available, you probably shouldn't cite RAW. You can just cite your understanding of the rules, or your memory of what a certain section says. "But the Sanctuary spell does X" seems better than "But RAW says X." You are giving a specific citation, and you aren't claiming to be directly quoting RAW, but rather paraphrasing what the spell does.

Official ruling is a fine term, and provides some shorthand for various sources, I suppose.

Ps yes, mobile formatting is a bear.

[Pex]

Now that's interesting. Do you suppose that, in trying so hard to balance 5e, WotC made the imbalanced bits stand out even more to players? Or is this just modern gaming culture? Or something else?

I think they decided they can't have perfect balance so they decided to let the DM determine what is balanced for his game and who cares if it means having to relearn how to play the game depending on who is DM that day.

Well, I care.

But I rant again.

:smallbiggrin:

But I am being serious.

I can see the point in admitting you can't please everyone so let people please themselves. While I can admit it's not a complete failure since a lot people go rah rah over it, it's still not pleasing everyone bringing us full circle. Lack of rules consistency from game to game is a bother.

[KorvinStarmast]

Or is this just modern gaming culture? It is a small but noisy subset of gaming culture as we know it today.

....who cares if it means having to relearn how to play the game depending on who is DM that day. You don't have to "relearn the game." You have to adapt to that table. Overstatement does not sell the point very well.

We will not digress beyond this, however, so please carry on. :smallcool:

[Arcangel4774]

Now that's interesting. Do you suppose that, in trying so hard to balance 5e, WotC made the imbalanced bits stand out even more to players? Or is this just modern gaming culture? Or something else?

I think you nailed both parts of it. As more and more testing goes through, balance will be better, but imbalance will be more glaringly obvious. In this age where we "solved information", developers can test on the fly and fix everything as it goes (erata). This leads to an ever evolving meta in many gaming genres.

Which ties in to a big part of the culture. Those of us who play a variety of styles of games expect the constant update and balancing, and in trying to get the upper hand, we are good at rooting it out. Theorycrafting and rules lawyering come from this trained eye. Tie this in with the combination of ready information and self importance in the modern generations, and anybody can be an "expert".

[Arcangel4774]

This is not to be confused with post-modernism, which holds that all interpretations of a thing are equally valid. Death of the Author doesn't even suggest infinite interpretations. It merely says the author doesn't get to decide the one true interpretation.

I'd debate that Barthes does embody a big portion of the post-modern. If I was to summarise it postmodern doesn't hold thay all truths are equally valid, but that truth itself is subjective. This subjectivity is a big portion in the Death of the Author, as what defines the "true interpretation" is the culture or society that views it, not the writer that wrote it. Shakespeare, for example, catered to the uneducated of his time, but his work is now celebrated as high literature.

Sorry to go off topic, I just enjoy a good debate in literature.

[Sigreid]

I think that except for RAW, it's all a pretty meaningless debate.

I mean:

RAW is the clear and direct application of what the rule actually says.
RAI is the interpretation of what a rule's intent was when there is some ambiguity, based on the experiences and perspective of the interpreter
ERATTA: Is the new RAW, though a given table may not chose to implement the change at their table it is still the RAW
Sage Advice: An RAI interpretation released by one of the devs. This interpretation may not be the same one they would have had when the rule was written as people can process the same words differently at different times, and we've seen in the tweets that the devs don't always agree on RAI anyway.
Rulings: What the DM does in game, on the spot. While this should be based on RAW and RAI as currently understood, it's not the slave to them. The purpose of rulings is to increase the fun of the game by speeding things up (by reducing the need to look up rules or rule lawyer), and allowing for things that the rules do not adequately cover in a somewhat logical and cohesive way.



That's my take anyway.

[smcmike]

I hope this doesn't give offense, but this post highlights some of what I was talking about:



RAW is the clear and direct application of what the rule actually says.

By my definition, RAW is what the rule actually says, not an application of what the rule actually says, no matter how clear or direct. Clarity and directness are often debated, after all, and what is worse than someone claiming that their interpretation is RAW? Regardless, not a useful term - just cite the rule, and make your argument.



RAI is the interpretation of what a rule's intent was when there is some ambiguity, based on the experiences and perspective of the interpreter

I don't see how this is better than "my interpretation," or "Crawford's interpretation," unless you mean to separate out interpretations not based upon authorial intent, which is difficult to do.

[Sigreid]

I hope this doesn't give offense, but this post highlights some of what I was talking about:



By my definition, RAW is what the rule actually says, not an application of what the rule actually says, no matter how clear or direct. Clarity and directness are often debated, after all, and what is worse than someone claiming that their interpretation is RAW? Regardless, not a useful term - just cite the rule, and make your argument.



I don't see how this is better than "my interpretation," or "Crawford's interpretation," unless you mean to separate out interpretations not based upon authorial intent, which is difficult to do.
No offense taken.

RAW is what the rule says yes, but the rule isn't really anything until it's used.

RAI is all about interpretation. My point was that RAI is all about the best interpretation of what was intended by the interpreting party. After all, 5 years in it's unlikely that even the person who wrote a rule is 100% on exactly what they intended when the rule was initially written.

[Pex]

It is a small but noisy subset of gaming culture as we know it today.
You don't have to "relearn the game." You have to adapt to that table. Overstatement does not sell the point very well.

We will not digress beyond this, however, so please carry on. :smallcool:

Does Great Weapon Style work on smites?
Who determines what creatures are summoned?
Can I identify a spell an enemy is casting? If so, how?
Can I know the abilities of this creature I'm about to face? If so, how?

These aren't minor quibbles of differences. They change how the game is played. They change how a player will create and grow his character.

I should not have to ask every new DM I play with "What rules are we using this time?" "How does my class work?"

[PhoenixPhyre]

I should not have to ask every new DM I play with "What rules are we using this time?"

What's wrong with a session 0? That's the time for people to communicate both time and substance. It's also inevitable that there will be substantive differences in adjudication between tables unless the system is so locked down and predefined that a computer can run it. So just ask "I'm thinking of running a character like X. I plan to pick abilities like Y,Z, and W. What's your policy on those?" 99% of the abilities are non-controversial. It's both the players' and the DM's responsibility to communicate expectations and broad rulings.

I'd even be willing to bet that most DMs don't really have an opinion on most of those topics you mentioned, and are willing to do whatever. So use your words and talk about it. In 3.X, you had to have much more in-depth conversations about that classes (and spells, feats, interpretations, etc) were allowed. Here, the character-build affecting rulings are pretty small in comparison.

[Pex]

What's wrong with a session 0? That's the time for people to communicate both time and substance. It's also inevitable that there will be substantive differences in adjudication between tables unless the system is so locked down and predefined that a computer can run it. So just ask "I'm thinking of running a character like X. I plan to pick abilities like Y,Z, and W. What's your policy on those?" 99% of the abilities are non-controversial. It's both the players' and the DM's responsibility to communicate expectations and broad rulings.

I'd even be willing to bet that most DMs don't really have an opinion on most of those topics you mentioned, and are willing to do whatever. So use your words and talk about it. In 3.X, you had to have much more in-depth conversations about that classes (and spells, feats, interpretations, etc) were allowed. Here, the character-build affecting rulings are pretty small in comparison.

Doesn't matter if it's done at Session 0. That's still relearning how to play the game to go over all the rules.

[qube]

> Why would RAW be more infallible then the people who wrote it?

It's pragmatic. As we all know, keeping up with errata is difficult by itself.yes, but that's hardly a reasoning why one can argue something in the lines of "I know the devs say it's not X but Y, but the wirtten rules say X, so it's gonna be X, not Y".


RAI is all about interpretation. My point was that RAI is all about the best interpretation of what was intended by the interpreting party. After all, 5 years in it's unlikely that even the person who wrote a rule is 100% on exactly what they intended when the rule was initially written.RAI is all about intend, not interpretation. So what if the author is only 99.9% sure about what his original intent was? It's still far superior then any of us taking a stab in the dark.


I should not have to ask every new DM I play with "What rules are we using this time?" "How does my class work?" Considering many DMs have their own little houserules, I don't really agree with your example. Even on a lower level, how can the DM know if you're one of those Screw-Sage-Advice-What-Do-They-Know people, or a RAW+RAI kind of person?

However, you do make a solid point that the more clear the rules are, the better. (that a DM can clearly spot the line between rule & houserule and thus inform the player as such (not thinking something is a rule, so doesn't mention it; while the other person thought it worked differently)

[qube]

Sorry for the double post, but I wanted to note: Death on the Author advocates it being better that everyone has their own personal interpretation of a text. This simply isn't true for rules.

While it might be important that rules allow the ability to say "screw this rule, I'm gonna do it differently" - nobody benefits from a table where 5 people have 5 different interpretations.

[Pex]

Considering many DMs have their own little houserules, I don't really agree with your example. Even on a lower level, how can the DM know if you're one of those Screw-Sage-Advice-What-Do-They-Know people, or a RAW+RAI kind of person?



House rules are not the same thing. House rules are deliberate changes to the established rules. You know what the rule is, but you want to change it to something else to suit your taste. I'm talking about trying to figure out what the established rules are in the first place.




While it might be important that rules allow the ability to say "screw this rule, I'm gonna do it differently"

The house rule.



nobody benefits from a table where 5 people have 5 different interpretations.

Relearning how to play the game depending on who is DM that day.

[Easy_Lee]

Sorry for the double post, but I wanted to note: Death on the Author advocates it being better that everyone has their own personal interpretation of a text. This simply isn't true for rules.

While it might be important that rules allow the ability to say "screw this rule, I'm gonna do it differently" - nobody benefits from a table where 5 people have 5 different interpretations.

This is why I brought up pragmatism in regards to sage advice. We might expect players to keep up with errata, but it is beyond optimistic to expect them to keep up with sage advice. If this was true in previous editions, it is more so now due to the sheer volume of tweets and SA articles.

It's not a matter of what is best, but what people will actually do. If RAI becomes the gold standard, and sage advice is RAI, then players will end up playing different versions of the game. No two players, let alone tables, will have the exact same understanding of sage advice.

Which, again, is why I wish 5e's rules had been more consistent and clear in the first place.

[robbie374]

I'd debate that Barthes does embody a big portion of the post-modern. If I was to summarise it postmodern doesn't hold thay all truths are equally valid, but that truth itself is subjective. This subjectivity is a big portion in the Death of the Author, as what defines the "true interpretation" is the culture or society that views it, not the writer that wrote it. Shakespeare, for example, catered to the uneducated of his time, but his work is now celebrated as high literature.

Sorry to go off topic, I just enjoy a good debate in literature.

Personally I find the post-modern view of subjective truth to be prideful and insulting to all artists. If a person creates something with thought and intention and purpose, as most authors do, then the author's intention is the only one that is true and matters: there is no room for individuals to reinterpret someone else's dedicated work to fit their own whims and desires. It is not the postmodern reader who has any expertise to speak of, but the creator only. If the creator is unable to contribute further opinion, such as by death, then an intellectually honest person will strive to follow what words and deeds do exist to construct the clearest possible understanding. Any action to the contrary is base and parasitical. A viewing culture or society that reinterprets is one that is full of itself and ignorant of reality.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I think that people underestimate how difficult (in fact impossible) it is to have rules that are clear, complete, and playable simultaneously. Especially for something as open-ended as a TTRPG. It's easy (well, easier) for a board game or card game because the set of all circumstances is fixed and limited. The rules are the only way in which the players interact with the game. This is not true and cannot be true for a TTRPG.

Rules, no matter how they're written, will always have ambiguity and be incomplete because the possibilities are endless. Don't think of this as a computer game (with fixed interactions and scripting) or a board game (with enumerable possibilities)--TTRPG rule sets are more frameworks for resolving common interactions with the game world. They cannot enumerate all possible scenarios (or even a measurable fraction of scenarios) without strongly restricting the freedom of the game. They come "some assembly required, parts not included." 5e recognizes this and has intentionally left many issues up to the DM (and/or the table) to resolve. This isn't a failure on their part, it's a concession to the reality that these things will be varied regardless of what the rules may say otherwise.

No edition of D&D has successfully removed "relearning the rules for each new DM." 3.X tried to codify many things, but there was still major, unremovable variation in rulings and application of rules. 4e tried to lock certain things down even further (formalizing a lot of keywords, using them consistently) but still required adjudication in large areas (ie anything not in combat). Most of the questions that Pex has brought up would still need to be asked there. This is nothing new--they've just bowed to the reality and brought it explicitly into the ambit of the DM. That's a good thing--recognizing reality and accommodating it is better than pretending everything can be mechanically applied.



Comprehensive and clear rules. Open-ended gameplay. Crunchy "simulationist" rules. Choose at most two.



Fate, for example, has the first two. The rules cover everything and allow freedom by abstracting almost everything to a much higher level and incorporating metacurrencies and narrative elements while not even pretending to simulate the in-universe reality most of the time. Spending a Fate point (or gaining one) is a game device, not a universe device.

Early D&D (from what I understand) chose the latter two options. Anyone saying that 3.5 had clearer rules hasn't looked at that forum recently. The number of dysfunctional or WTF things is huge. Earlier editions didn't even make the attempt to have comprehensive rules, and usually failed on the clear part as well.


All in all, those expecting comprehensive, clear rules are asking for something unreasonable. Are there things that could be clarified (and many have been in errata or Sage Advice)? Sure. Is it perfect? Absolutely not. Do the flaws interfere with the game? Not for me.


As an example, at work (in real life), we just had training on the new Employee Handbook. This was written over many months by the HR staff, the CEO, and the legal team. They wrote these rules to try to cover the eventualities and protect the workplace from legal threat while still allowing us to do our jobs. In essence, they were trying to codify every place that could get us (as an institution) in legal trouble. In doing so, their "best practices" wording made certain departments essentially unable to do their job. These carefully-crafted legal statements were ambiguous and unworkable in several areas, and more revision is necessary. And this was an expensive effort involving veteran lawyers and administrators. They couldn't (and it is unreasonable to expect them to) have created a perfectly clear document that covered all the bases. Workers and staff have to be able to use their professional judgement in applying the "rules" to the situation.

This is exactly on point with DMing. The group as a whole must use their judgement on issues, because you can't specify everything (or even any non-trivial amount of precise issues) and still have a playable game. Even with perfectly clear rules, people will still differ in understanding and application of those rules.

[robbie374]

What might be an interesting addition would be IVR, Interesting Variant Rules.

There is a great deal of homebrew. Some of it creates brand new things to expand the world in a myriad of ways. Other of it is adjustments to the basic rules and mechanics to improve play and fun. It is this second category that is particularly useful to 5e players at large.

Unearthed Arcana is adding to the almost-official options we have in 5e, but it would be cool if the creators could sanction a list of homebrew variant submissions that they think fit well with the existing system without unbalancing things. Examples might include alternate initiative systems, modifications to downtime activity, changing spellcasting modifiers, or flexible racial ASIs. This would be less official than UA, but more official than general homebrew, and would be readily available to everyone who plays the game. Future official updates would also have this as an additional source of content.

As IVR, these subjects would likely be heavily debated on major 5e forums and be refined enough by this debate to be dubbed Interesting by WotC, but not refined by the experts at WotC themselves as UA.

[PhoenixPhyre]

What might be an interesting addition would be IVR, Interesting Variant Rules.

There is a great deal of homebrew. Some of it creates brand new things to expand the world in a myriad of ways. Other of it is adjustments to the basic rules and mechanics to improve play and fun. It is this second category that is particularly useful to 5e players at large.

Unearthed Arcana is adding to the almost-official options we have in 5e, but it would be cool if the creators could sanction a list of homebrew variant submissions that they think fit well with the existing system without unbalancing things. Examples might include alternate initiative systems, modifications to downtime activity, changing spellcasting modifiers, or flexible racial ASIs. This would be less official than UA, but more official than general homebrew, and would be readily available to everyone who plays the game. Future official updates would also have this as an additional source of content.

As IVR, these subjects would likely be heavily debated on major 5e forums and be refined enough by this debate to be dubbed Interesting by WotC, but not refined by the experts at WotC themselves as UA.

I like the idea, but I'm afraid that the legal department would have hives at the intellectual property and liability issues associated with giving even an "unofficial" official stamp of approval to 3rd party work. Sad to say, it's a minefield they're probably going to be unwilling to step into. It's a 10-foot pole issue. I've seen similar suggestions at work and watched the legal team immediately go into full panic mode. Shouldn't be that way, but knowing the litigiousness and loss-averse nature of business in the USA (especially for a relatively niche product, which D&D is for Hasbro (who owns WotC)).

[MrStabby]

I really don't like the "official ruling" label for twitter output.

Sometimes it is OK. An edge case gets clarified and then gets put into the next errata. I have no problem with that.

The ones I have difficulty with are the responses that are made in haste to a question, but are not considered by the authors to be worthy of inclusion in the following errata after more time has passed.

I see 3 categories:

Good rulings - which are chosen to be put in the errata
Untested rulings - no errata have been issued so we cannot tell if they will be included or not
Bad rulings: Errata have been issued since they were put up on twitter but the authors opted not to include them

A whole lot of rulings have fallen into this last category. If those that fall into the first category (good rulings) go into an errata document then they will be called rules. Of the unknown and the bad - there are more bad than unknown and describing these as "official" may unfortunately give the impression that they should carry weight.

[smcmike]

Personally I find the post-modern view of subjective truth to be prideful and insulting to all artists. If a person creates something with thought and intention and purpose, as most authors do, then the author's intention is the only one that is true and matters: there is no room for individuals to reinterpret someone else's dedicated work to fit their own whims and desires. It is not the postmodern reader who has any expertise to speak of, but the creator only. If the creator is unable to contribute further opinion, such as by death, then an intellectually honest person will strive to follow what words and deeds do exist to construct the clearest possible understanding. Any action to the contrary is base and parasitical. A viewing culture or society that reinterprets is one that is full of itself and ignorant of reality.

Lol at this.

Both sides of this debate can get a bit ridiculous, don't you think? I mean, it's neat to figure out what the artist was trying to convey, but no room for others' whims or desires? Come on - people have been repurposing art since there was such a thing as art. So what if it's parasitical? Everything is.

[MrStabby]

Lol at this.

Both sides of this debate can get a bit ridiculous, don't you think? I mean, it's neat to figure out what the artist was trying to convey, but no room for others' whims or desires? Come on - people have been repurposing art since there was such a thing as art. So what if it's parasitical? Everything is.

There is a deep and abiding question that comes out of such issues: "why does anyone care?". Even if you could get inside the mind of an author from their work, what purpose does it serve? You now think you know what some dead person thought? So what?

[Pex]

No edition of D&D has successfully removed "relearning the rules for each new DM." 3.X tried to codify many things, but there was still major, unremovable variation in rulings and application of rules. 4e tried to lock certain things down even further (formalizing a lot of keywords, using them consistently) but still required adjudication in large areas (ie anything not in combat). Most of the questions that Pex has brought up would still need to be asked there. This is nothing new--they've just bowed to the reality and brought it explicitly into the ambit of the DM. That's a good thing--recognizing reality and accommodating it is better than pretending everything can be mechanically applied.


I've never played 4E so can't comment about it.

I've never needed to ask a 3E DM what rules are we using today. The closest is asking if a particular source book can be used, i. e. Tome of Battle or Dreamscarred Press Psionics for Pathfinder, but that's because they use significantly different rules than the norm. The issue with 3E is not vagueness of rules. The issue is unintended consequences of combining rules from several sourcebooks onto one character. Persistent Spell even at its original +4 spell levels wasn't a huge problem, by itself. It became a concern because Planning Domain was created to give a free Extend Spell feat. It became a problem because Divine Metamagic was created. It became a huge problem because nightsticks were created. Nightsticks themselves are fine for their original intended use.

Even for those people who hate 3E with a passion for just the Player's Handbook alone their hatred is based on clear rules, not vagueness.

Simpler rules are fine. Less splat is fine. Neither require vagueness leading to competing interpretations or lack of rules.

[Sigreid]

I've never played 4E so can't comment about it.

I've never needed to ask a 3E DM what rules are we using today. The closest is asking if a particular source book can be used, i. e. Tome of Battle or Dreamscarred Press Psionics for Pathfinder, but that's because they use significantly different rules than the norm. The issue with 3E is not vagueness of rules. The issue is unintended consequences of combining rules from several sourcebooks onto one character. Persistent Spell even at its original +4 spell levels wasn't a huge problem, by itself. It became a concern because Planning Domain was created to give a free Extend Spell feat. It became a problem because Divine Metamagic was created. It became a huge problem because nightsticks were created. Nightsticks themselves are fine for their original intended use.

Even for those people who hate 3E with a passion for just the Player's Handbook alone their hatred is based on clear rules, not vagueness.

Simpler rules are fine. Less splat is fine. Neither require vagueness leading to competing interpretations or lack of rules.

I think some of us have difficulty seeing your issue because we have a steady group instead of playing at a bunch of different random tables. For example, I've been playing with the same people, with shared DM responsibility for over a decade. There isn't a lot of question at our table how things are going to be handled, or if the DM is going to be fair.

[Easy_Lee]

I think some of us have difficulty seeing your issue because we have a steady group instead of playing at a bunch of different random tables. For example, I've been playing with the same people, with shared DM responsibility for over a decade. There isn't a lot of question at our table how things are going to be handled, or if the DM is going to be fair.

A steady group is never going to have significant problems, other than with player personalities. It only takes a few sessions to establish how everyone works together.

Major ruling differences are primarily a problem for AL and similar organized play. Since WotC is pushing those things, it's worth talking about them.

[PhoenixPhyre]

A steady group is never going to have significant problems, other than with player personalities. It only takes a few sessions to establish how everyone works together.

Major ruling differences are primarily a problem for AL and similar organized play. Since WotC is pushing those things, it's worth talking about them.

But in the context of AL the differences are muted--there are additional restrictions on rulings and much is given in the adventure path. If you're going to restrict things, do so in those settings, not across the board where it affects people who don't play AL (or always play with the same AL DM). Fix the problem at the smallest scope and don't screw up the game for the rest of us.

[Easy_Lee]

But in the context of AL the differences are muted--there are additional restrictions on rulings and much is given in the adventure path. If you're going to restrict things, do so in those settings, not across the board where it affects people who don't play AL (or always play with the same AL DM). Fix the problem at the smallest scope and don't screw up the game for the rest of us.

In spite of the additional restrictions, I've seen huge differences between AL DMs, beyond just style.

The most common example I've seen given: can a familiar Help with the attack action and provide advantage? Try asking a few AL DMs. I've heard yes, yes but a creature will just kill the familiar if it does, and no (which is think is the correct answer for non chain-locks, because familiars can't attack).

5e is finicky, and not everyone has read an equal amount of sage advice. Furthermore, AL DMs are still people, and you can't get them to all behave the same way. Since 5e emphasizes rulings so much, you're guaranteed to get quite a few different rulings depending on the table. And some of those rulings, like the one above, can have a big impact on a chafactcter.

So, even though it shouldn't be, it's still an AL issue.

[PhoenixPhyre]

In spite of the additional restrictions, I've seen huge differences between AL DMs, beyond just style.

The most common example I've seen given: can a familiar Help with the attack action and provide advantage? Try asking a few AL DMs. I've heard yes, yes but a creature will just kill the familiar if it does, and no (which is think is the correct answer for non chain-locks, because familiars can't attack).

5e is finicky, and not everyone has read an equal amount of sage advice. Furthermore, AL DMs are still people, and you can't get them to all behave the same way. Since 5e emphasizes rulings so much, you're guaranteed to get quite a few different rulings depending on the table. And some of those rulings, like the one above, can have a big impact on a chafactcter.

So, even though it shouldn't be, it's still an AL issue.

So fix that in the AL context (ie have a list of "approved rulings" in the AL DMs guidelines).

I also take exception to the idea that 5e is finicky. Wide variation in rulings hasn't substantively changed the system in a way that hurts things (in my experience). It takes getting used to, but really doesn't make a big difference. 3.X and 4e were much more fragile under variation--having more moving parts (more defined terms, more explicit rules) makes things more rigid and finicky, not less so.

[Easy_Lee]

So fix that in the AL context (ie have a list of "approved rulings" in the AL DMs guidelines).

I also take exception to the idea that 5e is finicky. Wide variation in rulings hasn't substantively changed the system in a way that hurts things (in my experience). It takes getting used to, but really doesn't make a big difference. 3.X and 4e were much more fragile under variation--having more moving parts (more defined terms, more explicit rules) makes things more rigid and finicky, not less so.

I don't think we define the word finicky the same way. For me, rigid is the opposite of finicky. So let me put it this way.

In 3e, pretty much everyone knew exactly how the rules worked. Builds either worked or they didn't, and simple stuff rarely warranted any debate.

In 5e, no one knows how the rules work because they depend on the DM. Additionally, players have to remember what's an opportunity attack vs a reaction attack, what's reach vs 5 feet, whether X bonus action can be taken only after Y action, which spells have concentration, and the specific rules on every ability they use. Nothing is written using consistent language. As shown time and again, every ability in 5e has to be analyzed on its own.

For proof, just look at the RAW thread. Hundreds of posts in, and it isn't even our first one. People don't agree on or fully understand the rules. I don't think that's an opinion; at this point, it's as close to fact as it can be.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I don't think we define the word finicky the same way. For me, rigid is the opposite of finicky. So let me put it this way.

In 3e, pretty much everyone knew exactly how the rules worked. Builds either worked or they didn't, and simple stuff rarely warranted any debate.

In 5e, no one knows how the rules work because they depend on the DM. Additionally, players have to remember what's an opportunity attack vs a reaction attack, what's reach vs 5 feet, whether X bonus action can be taken only after Y action, which spells have concentration, and the specific rules on every ability they use. Nothing is written using consistent language. As shown time and again, every ability in 5e has to be analyzed on its own.

For proof, just look at the RAW thread. Hundreds of posts in, and it isn't even our first one. People don't understand the rules. I don't think that's an opinion; at this point, it's as close to fact as it can be.

That's not what finicky means to me. A finicky recipe (or algorithm, or whatever) must be done just so or it fails miserably. Most of the things you bring up just plain don't matter. Do it one way, do it another, neither breaks anything. 5e is exceptionally forgiving of rules "mistakes" precisely because it's loosely defined. A tightly defined system depends on all its parts--get one wrong and the whole thing comes crashing down.

I guess where we'll have to disagree is that I find variation in rules and rulings (within broad limits) a good thing. I'm a DM 90+% of the time (most of the year I have 3 or more groups going). I play at other tables when I can--one of the reasons is to get ideas. To see where I can adapt something to make my games more fun for everyone. The rules are made for the players, not the players for the rules. If something's in the way at a particular table, not changing it would be a problem in my eyes. 5e gives me the flexibility to do that with rather broad limits. Changing how individual abilities work only rarely breaks anything else. A tighter system would restrict that fundamental freedom for little gain, making the game less fun for me and mine.

[smcmike]

I don't think we define the word finicky the same way. For me, rigid is the opposite of finicky. So let me put it this way.

Rigid and finicky often go together. Rigid things don't leave room for error, and therefore any little mistake can be catastrophic. Imagine a pastry recipe which requires absolute adherence to the directions, with very precise measurement of time, temperature, and amount. This recipe is finicky and rigid.

A soup recipe where you just take everything you have and simmer it for a while? Not rigid, not finicky.



For proof, just look at the RAW thread. Hundreds of posts in, and it isn't even our first one. People don't agree on or fully understand the rules. I don't think that's an opinion; at this point, it's as close to fact as it can be.

There have been 33 RAW threads in 3.5.

[Easy_Lee]

I guess where we'll have to disagree is that I find variation in rules and rulings (within broad limits) a good thing. I'm a DM 90+% of the time (most of the year I have 3 or more groups going). I play at other tables when I can--one of the reasons is to get ideas. To see where I can adapt something to make my games more fun for everyone. The rules are made for the players, not the players for the rules. If something's in the way at a particular table, not changing it would be a problem in my eyes. 5e gives me the flexibility to do that with rather broad limits. Changing how individual abilities work only rarely breaks anything else. A tighter system would restrict that fundamental freedom for little gain, making the game less fun for me and mine.

I think variations in rulings on the same rules is horrible. Rule 0 already enabled any DM to set down the rules they wanted.

By changing rulings instead of rules, the DM gives the player no warning. This is passive-aggressive house ruling. Worse, the DM may not even realize he's doing it.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I think variations in rulings on the same rules is horrible. Rule 0 already enabled any DM to set down the rules they wanted.

By changing rulings instead of rules, the DM gives the player no warning. This is passive-aggressive house ruling. Worse, the DM may not even realize he's doing it.

I disagree. You're assuming that there is a default (the rules) and that there are deviations from the rules (rulings or house-rules). Rulings are how rules are applied. No rule is self-enforcing--all rules need rulings to decide whether (or how) they apply in this specific instance. This is true whether we're talking about games, sports, or the law. 90+% of legal cases are "does this rule apply?" or "what rule applies," disputes in good faith, not disputes over what the rule is. You're expecting too much from a system.

3.5e was only as "fixed" as it seems because it's been around a real long time at this point. Look at Pathfinder. They're constantly errata'ing and fixing things because the rules weren't clear--and that's on the same base as 3.5. You're seeing a consistency that just plain doesn't exist.

[Millstone85]

The most common example I've seen given: can a familiar Help with the attack action and provide advantage? Try asking a few AL DMs. I've heard yes, yes but a creature will just kill the familiar if it does, and no (which is think is the correct answer for non chain-locks, because familiars can't attack).So, if I then quote to you what Sage Advice has to say on the matter, not on Twitter but in the Sage Advice Compendium, and it is this:
Can the familiar you conjure with the find familiar spell use the Help action to grant you advantage on your attack roll? A familiar can’t attack, but it can take non-attack actions, including Help. As the text of the Help action indicates (PH, 192), the action doesn’t require you to be able to attack; you simply need to be able to provide some sort of distraction.

How does it affect your opinion?

[Easy_Lee]

I disagree. You're assuming that there is a default (the rules) and that there are deviations from the rules (rulings or house-rules). Rulings are how rules are applied. No rule is self-enforcing--all rules need rulings to decide whether (or how) they apply in this specific instance. This is true whether we're talking about games, sports, or the law. 90+% of legal cases are "does this rule apply?" or "what rule applies," disputes in good faith, not disputes over what the rule is. You're expecting too much from a system.

3.5e was only as "fixed" as it seems because it's been around a real long time at this point. Look at Pathfinder. They're constantly errata'ing and fixing things because the rules weren't clear--and that's on the same base as 3.5. You're seeing a consistency that just plain doesn't exist.

I wonder how many back and forths it will take to convince you of something we both already know is true. You're dodging my arguments.

We have many RAW threads where people ask how the rules actually work. Often, the answer isn't even in the PHB: see reactions. Crawford and Mearls have spent most of their twitter time answering questions that players wouldn't have needed to ask if the rules were clear.

A clear rule doesn't need a ruling. The best laws don't need to be interpreted, only enforced. Don't murder anyone. Don't steal. Assuming we agree on what murder and steal mean, those laws require no interpretation. And before you try to argue that, nearly everyone agrees on what murder and steal mean. It takes a politician or used car salesman to try to talk their way out of that.

Similarly, players may take actions on their turn and reactions outside their turn. That's very clear. Some reactions occur during the trigger (protection fighting style, opportunity attacks provoked by movement) and others occur after. That isn't clear at all, because the reactions themselves don't directly say. Most of 5e's mechanics fall in the latter camp.

One more example: recently, I informed another poster that athletics only covers climbing, jumping, swimming, and grappling / pushing. The rules say that, but don't make it clear. He and countless other players didn't even realize it.

It's beyond obvious that 5e's rules are inordinately unclear.

And if you think it's unreasonable to expect a system to have clear rules, I point you to the video game industry where every rule must be coded. I point you to the writing of Hemingway, which was beautifully clear such that no one would ever mistake what he was saying.

Clear writing and clear rules are both eminently possible. If they cared, I would expect WotC's products to become more clear over time, not less. 5e is less.

[Pex]

I think some of us have difficulty seeing your issue because we have a steady group instead of playing at a bunch of different random tables. For example, I've been playing with the same people, with shared DM responsibility for over a decade. There isn't a lot of question at our table how things are going to be handled, or if the DM is going to be fair.


A steady group is never going to have significant problems, other than with player personalities. It only takes a few sessions to establish how everyone works together.

Major ruling differences are primarily a problem for AL and similar organized play. Since WotC is pushing those things, it's worth talking about them.

I don't play AL but am in several games due to real life. I'm personally able to play once a week. Others are not. All my groups only meet once every two or three weeks, and even a month can go by between games sometimes. I want to play more often, so I joined different games.

[smcmike]

A clear rule doesn't need a ruling. The best laws don't need to be interpreted, only enforced. Don't murder anyone. Don't steal. Assuming we agree on what murder and steal mean, those laws require no interpretation. And before you try to argue that, nearly everyone agrees on what murder and steal mean. It takes a politician or used car salesman to try to talk their way out of that.


I don't mean to be rude, but this is a ridiculous thing to say. You know we have thousands of years of rulings and rules on "murder," right?

Off the top of your head, what does "murder" mean?

[Easy_Lee]

So, if I then quote to you what Sage Advice has to say on the matter, not on Twitter but in the Sage Advice Compendium, and it is this:

How does it affect your opinion?

That's a case where I disagree with them. They're treating helping with attacks different from how they treat helping with anything else. And that's exactly the kind of thing I'm talking about. It's another 5e inconsistency.

The text can be interpreted either way. The sages picked one.

[Pex]

That's not what finicky means to me. A finicky recipe (or algorithm, or whatever) must be done just so or it fails miserably. Most of the things you bring up just plain don't matter. Do it one way, do it another, neither breaks anything. 5e is exceptionally forgiving of rules "mistakes" precisely because it's loosely defined. A tightly defined system depends on all its parts--get one wrong and the whole thing comes crashing down.

I guess where we'll have to disagree is that I find variation in rules and rulings (within broad limits) a good thing. I'm a DM 90+% of the time (most of the year I have 3 or more groups going). I play at other tables when I can--one of the reasons is to get ideas. To see where I can adapt something to make my games more fun for everyone. The rules are made for the players, not the players for the rules. If something's in the way at a particular table, not changing it would be a problem in my eyes. 5e gives me the flexibility to do that with rather broad limits. Changing how individual abilities work only rarely breaks anything else. A tighter system would restrict that fundamental freedom for little gain, making the game less fun for me and mine.

There you go. As DM you get to interpret the game into your image as you see fit. Trouble is every DM does that. Since I'm mostly a player the different interpretations means I have to relearn how to play the game depending on who is DM that day. You only play one game, your way, so that's why you're not seeing the problem. I play a few 5E games. They don't use the same rules, and I'm not talking about house rules.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I don't mean to be rude, but this is a ridiculous thing to say.

Of the top of your head, what does "murder" mean?

And more importantly, "does this particular set of facts regarding this killing amount to murder as defined in the law?" That's a ruling. Not "what is murder", but "is this murder." Honestly, most of the questions in the RAW thread and on Twitter are people who either

* Haven't read the text

Or

* Are looking for loopholes to exploit (looking to weaponize the rules against a DM or player)

Most of the responses are of the "see page X" variety. That's not confusion, that's laziness or attempted munchkinry. None of the questions I've ever seen have been complex as long as there's actually a rule that directly applies.

You (meaning Pex) want comprehensive rules, but you're complaining about clarity. I can have clear, unambiguous rules that are not comprehensive, or vice versa (or neither). I don't want comprehensive rules because those rules are unlikely to work well for my groups. I'd have to change lots of stuff anyway, with the added penalty of empowering rules lawyers and people looking to ruin the fun of others and hide behind "RAW says..." No thanks.

I'd rather have what we do have--a framework of flexible resolution mechanics with specific exceptions that only weakly interact. This allows me to fiddle with things for the sake of the group without bogging everything down looking up numbers and cross-referencing multiple tables.

[Pex]

I disagree. You're assuming that there is a default (the rules) and that there are deviations from the rules (rulings or house-rules). Rulings are how rules are applied. No rule is self-enforcing--all rules need rulings to decide whether (or how) they apply in this specific instance. This is true whether we're talking about games, sports, or the law. 90+% of legal cases are "does this rule apply?" or "what rule applies," disputes in good faith, not disputes over what the rule is. You're expecting too much from a system.

3.5e was only as "fixed" as it seems because it's been around a real long time at this point. Look at Pathfinder. They're constantly errata'ing and fixing things because the rules weren't clear--and that's on the same base as 3.5. You're seeing a consistency that just plain doesn't exist.

The errata is to fix typos or an ability was proven to be too powerful or too weak, usually too powerful. If a rule is vague to warrant errata it is the exception. Pathfinder is rules heavy. I don't doubt there will exist a rule or two that is vague. It is nowhere near the subjective percentage of 5E.

[Easy_Lee]

And more importantly, "does this particular set of facts regarding this killing amount to murder as defined in the law?" That's a ruling. Not "what is murder", but "is this murder." Honestly, most of the questions in the RAW thread and on Twitter are people who either

* Haven't read the text

Or

* Are looking for loopholes to exploit (looking to weaponize the rules against a DM or player)

Most of the responses are of the "see page X" variety. That's not confusion, that's laziness or attempted munchkinry. None of the questions I've ever seen have been complex as long as there's actually a rule that directly applies.

You (meaning Pex) want comprehensive rules, but you're complaining about clarity. I can have clear, unambiguous rules that are not comprehensive, or vice versa (or neither). I don't want comprehensive rules because those rules are unlikely to work well for my groups. I'd have to change lots of stuff anyway, with the added penalty of empowering rules lawyers and people looking to ruin the fun of others and hide behind "RAW says..." No thanks.

I'd rather have what we do have--a framework of flexible resolution mechanics with specific exceptions that only weakly interact. This allows me to fiddle with things for the sake of the group without bogging everything down looking up numbers and cross-referencing multiple tables.

It also changes at every table. Whether you like it or not, that's a really big problem for some of us. You don't seem to care that some of us find that to be a huge problem. Well, frankly, I don't care whether you think it isn't a problem. I don't ever care if you like that about the game. Because I hate that about the game.

I don't want the basic rules to change without notice when I switch tables. That's what happens in 5e. I never once had that happen in 3.5e, or in any other game I've played for that matter.

Again, it doesn't matter to me if this is a problem for you. It's a problem for enough people that it's a problem whether you want it to be or not.

And, again, rule 0 already enabled you to play however the hell you wanted to. I've talked to DMs who like this system, and I can tell you that two of them wanted an excuse to change the rules on the fly without having to justify it or tell anyone, calling it a "ruling." That's what 5e enables.

As far as people in this thread who don't think we can all agree what the word "murder" means, I don't know whether to feel pity or dread.

[Millstone85]

That's a case where I disagree with them. They're treating helping with attacks different from how they treat helping with anything else. And that's exactly the kind of thing I'm talking about. It's another 5e inconsistency.

The text can be interpreted either way. The sages picked one.They are treating helping with an attack roll differently than helping with an ability check. It is not an inconsistency, but an aspect of one of the core distinctions of the game.

But what matters here is that you only see the sages interpreting the PHB, not the sages remembering what was their intent when they wrote the PHB.

[Easy_Lee]

They are treating helping with an attack roll differently than helping with an ability check. It is not an inconsistency, but an aspect of one of the core distinctions of the game.

But what matters here is that you only see the sages interpreting the PHB, not the sages remembering what was their intent when they wrote the PHB.

I see a lot more than you seen to give me credit for. See my original post, where I directly stated that sage advice is RAI.

And I refer you back to my original post. Rules, house rules, rulings, and official rulings are all different things. None of them invalidates any other. I just want people to be honest about what they're discussing.

[smcmike]

As far as people in this thread who don't think we can all agree what the word "murder" means, I don't know whether to feel pity or dread.

I notice that you did not attempt to define it. Feel free to do so, if it's so obvious (no cheating!)

And, even with a clear definition, application is always a problem. How many killings have been publicly and loudly debated in the last five years?

[Easy_Lee]

I notice that you did not attempt to define it. Feel free to do so, if it's so obvious (no cheating!)

And, even with a clear definition, application is always a problem. How many killings have been publicly and loudly debated in the last five years?

Premeditated killing of one human being by another. The hardest part is proving intent.

Next you're going to want me to define Premeditated. Fair warning: I'm not going to. You already know exactly what that means. You already knew exactly what murder meant, too. I know you did, and you know you did. I don't know why you tried to pull that card in the first place.

[Theodoxus]

I'm going to jump back to these, because I think Pex is on to something...


Does Great Weapon Style work on smites?
Who determines what creatures are summoned?
Can I identify a spell an enemy is casting? If so, how?
Can I know the abilities of this creature I'm about to face? If so, how?


1) GWS and rider damage - definitely open to DM interpretation. Sage Advice has advised, but not officially ruled, as far as I can tell... allowing it to only affect weapon dice de-powers the ability, so power level of the campaign should be considered as part of the ruling. The same DM with different campaigns could easily rule in two different ways.

2) Summons - another SA advised but not ruled. Honestly, I wish there'd been randomness built into the spells - roll a d20 and see what appears against a chart type thing. As such, I keep the decision as a DM. But I wouldn't have an issue if it was left to player agency - I just think you'd end up with pretty cookie cutter summons based on needs.

3) There's nothing RAW or RAI concerning spell cast discernment. I remember a pretty detailed discussion back in 2014, using various knowledge rolls with DC equal to 10+spell level, where Arcane was used for Bard, Sorc, 'lock and Wizard spells, Religion for Cleric and Paladin spells and Nature for Druid and Ranger spells... it was inventive, but ultimately, for my table at least, just a hassle. As a DM, I simply inform the players what spell is being cast, if they ask. Since it's not codified either way, I'm not sure if that would be considered a house rule or a ruling...

4) Critter abilities - I'm AFB, so I don't know if I'm remembering a 3.P rule or if it was carried over to 5th, but I do know that knowledges still provide insight into specific critter types; Arcane for aberations and magical creatures; religion for celestial, fiend and undead; nature for beasts and humanoids... Now, DCs and what information that imparts isn't codified, as far as I know... so that'd be DM fiat...


Regarding the session 0 communication, that's all well and good - especially if you have a small pool of people who've played together. My current gaming situation is a little different. We use Meetup to generate games. The DM is obviously free to set whatever parameters he wants - so it's not necessarily as codified as an official AL game - though most DMs have taken to using most AL rules, just for simplicity. But not all. But the problem is every session, there's a new body. Someone leaves the group, another takes their place. So, unless you're holding a mini-session 0 every game, not all the new players will get the ground rules.

I've run a campaign for 5 weeks now. Every week, there's been a new player or two. Every week, it's 20-30 minutes out of the start to run through character gen and get them into the group. When the session is only 4 hours long, that's eating into the established player's time (and mine, but I can't complain). Last night, had a 'new to the table' player complain because my rules were overly harsh (no feats, no multiclass, standard array) - because it's a game for players new to D&D and I'd rather not inundate them with optional rules at the start.

Sometimes, session 0 just isn't feasible every time the table meets...


Sorry, ETA...

Premeditated killing of one human being by another. The hardest part is proving intent.

Next you're going to want me to define Premeditated. Fair warning: I'm not going to. You already know exactly what that means. You already knew exactly what murder meant, too. I know you did, and you know you did. I don't know why you tried to pull that card in the first place.

Yeah, that definition is far too broad. It doesn't take into account things like war - which while I personally find horribly distasteful and should always be considered murder, especially for the aggressor - isn't considered such in international law.

There's quite a few other cases where premeditated taking of another life isn't considered murder: death penalty, stand your ground, etc.

Kinda proves the point though, doesn't it?

[smcmike]

Premeditated killing of one human being by another. The hardest part is proving intent.

Next you're going to want me to define Premeditated. Fair warning: I'm not going to. You already know exactly what that means. You already knew exactly what murder meant, too. I know you did, and you know you did. I don't know why you tried to pull that card in the first place.

This isn't a bad answer, and I'm not trying to trap you, only to demonstrate that your example of a simple rule is not that simple. If I were to break your answer down, I certainly would ask for a definition of premeditation, but I'd also ask if it is the same as intent (it isn't), the definition of intent, the definition of human beings, the definition of killing, and whether there are any exceptions or additions to the above definition (there are several of both). I'd also point out that the precise definition varies to some degree from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, and that in my jurisdiction "murder" doesn't require premeditation at all - it's an element for first degree murder, but second degree murder can be committed without it.

The source of all of this in my jurisdiction is hundreds of years of rulings, with a thin veneer of statute laid on top. And we still debate the application all the time! You think juries never argue about the definition and application of premeditation?

[PhoenixPhyre]

This isn't a bad answer, and I'm not trying to trap you, only to demonstrate that your example of a simple rule is not that simple. If I were to break your answer down, I certainly would ask for a definition of premeditation, but I'd also ask if it is the same as intent (it isn't), the definition of intent, the definition of human beings, the definition of killing, and whether there are any exceptions or additions to the above definition (there are several of both). I'd also point out that the precise definition varies to some degree from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, and that in my jurisdiction "murder" doesn't require premeditation at all - it's an element for first degree murder, but second degree murder can be committed without it.

The source of all of this in my jurisdiction is hundreds of years of rulings, with a thin veneer of statute laid on top. And we still debate the application all the time! You think juries never argue about the definition and application of premeditation?

And to amplify this, this is with binding rulings from authorities. Applications of rules are hard in all non-trivial cases.

For reference, here's Florida's statute defining murder: http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0700-0799/0782/Sections/0782.04.html It's long and has many subparts--and is incomplete. Most of those terms reference other statutes for their meanings. In application, there are hundreds if not thousands of different decisions that must be weighted and compared to come to a ruling. None of this is easy or self-applying. Different courts differ hugely on very similar facts. Different States differ, and the federal courts differ again. Civil law is even more complex.

Rules are hard. The law needs clarity because the stakes are so high. In a non-competitive, zero-stakes game, having clear principles and leaving it up to the discretion of the table makes a lot more sense to me both from an effort perspective and from a fun perspective.

[Arcangel4774]

Personally I find the post-modern view of subjective truth to be prideful and insulting to all artists. If a person creates something with thought and intention and purpose, as most authors do, then the author's intention is the only one that is true and matters: there is no room for individuals to reinterpret someone else's dedicated work to fit their own whims and desires. It is not the postmodern reader who has any expertise to speak of, but the creator only. If the creator is unable to contribute further opinion, such as by death, then an intellectually honest person will strive to follow what words and deeds do exist to construct the clearest possible understanding. Any action to the contrary is base and parasitical. A viewing culture or society that reinterprets is one that is full of itself and ignorant of reality.

I can see your view point. The bull in wallstreet, which originally signified strength and prosperity, has been twisted with the addition of that girl, making it into a villian.

On the other hand the pastiche found in postmodern writing can be quite strong. Books like American Psycho borrow writing styles form magizines, commercials, action flicks and other "low literature" in order to create a strong argument about the corruption of society, which values consumerism and possessions so highly.

[Easy_Lee]

The existence of rules lawyers, in real life or in games, doesn't make a law unclear. It just means that people will twist things however they can in order to win. If we're honest with ourselves, we all pretty much understand the law. Lawyers and politicians often twist the law, which is why those professions catch so much heat.

Regardless, whether perfect rules exist or not is irrelevant. Even if we can't make a rule perfectly clear, we can make it more clear. 3.5e had clearer rules than 5e. And 4e had much clearer rules, in spite of them being too gamey and taking too long.

This actually ties in nicely to the postmodernism tangent (which I started). The main flaw of postmodernists is their inability to understand relativity. Postmodernism started with the observation that there are an infinite number of ways to interpret a thing. That's true. Anything can be interpreted an infinite number of ways. They then concluded that all interpretations are valid. That conclusion is false.

And not the normal kind of false, either. That's the kind of false that leads to death. A doctor can diagnose a patient an infinite number of ways, but only some of those diagnoses will save the patient's life.

Applying this to D&D, we can all think of situations where a rules lawyer tried to interpret a rule in a way that didn't make sense. He argued that his interpretation is valid. He was right, too. But where he was wrong was in thinking that his interpretation was equally valid. We all knew the best interpretation, as did he. He just didn't want to accept it.

And that's what postmodernism and rules lawyering has in common. It's not an epistemological method. It's a debate tactic used to distract and try to get what you want. And that's all it is.

5e encourages and enables more rules lawyering with its unclear rules.

[smcmike]

The existence of rules lawyers, in real life or in games, doesn't make a law unclear. It just means that people will twist things however they can in order to win. If we're honest with ourselves, we all pretty much understand the law. Lawyers and politicians often twist the law, which is why those professions catch so much heat.


Lol.


Regardless, whether perfect rules exist or not is irrelevant. Even if we can't make a rule perfectly clear, we can make it more clear. 3.5e had clearer rules than 5e. And 4e had much clearer rules, in spite of them being too gamey and taking too long.

I agree. 3.5 had clearer rules than 5e. I think the flexibility provided by 5e is a worthwhile tradeoff for the loss of clarity.



Applying this to D&D, we can all think of situations where a rules lawyer tried to interpret a rule in a way that didn't make sense. He argued that his interpretation is valid. He was right, too. But where he was wrong was in thinking that his interpretation was equally valid. We all knew the best interpretation, as did he. He just didn't want to accept it.

And that's what postmodernism and rules lawyering has in common. It's not an epistemological method. It's a debate tactic used to distract and try to get what you want. And that's all it is.

5e encourages and enables more rules lawyering with its unclear rules.

That all depends what you mean by "rules lawyering."

In 3.5, my image of the rules lawyer was the guy who opened the book whenever the DM did something he didn't like. Lawyers love to cite authority, afterall.

In 5e, the smaller ruleset disempowers this sort of rules lawyer. There is simply less to cite. I can argue what I think a vague rule means, but the DM is left with more flexibility to resolve things. So long as you have a good DM, that's not a problem.

In some ways, 5e is more like your idea of how the law really should work: you think we all have some idea of what murder means, and should simply get on with it. This is not an argument for precise codification!!!

[Easy_Lee]

In some ways, 5e is more like your idea of how the law really should work: you think we all have some idea of what murder means, and should simply get on with it. This is not an argument for precise codification!!!

When I first looked at 5e, that was what I thought too. It wasn't until I had some exposure that I found all of the discrepancies where something doesn't work the way I thought it did, or doesn't work the same way as a similar thing.

Like I said before, there are reaction attacks and opportunity attacks, reactions that occur before during and after the trigger but don't say which, and bonus actions you may only take after a specific other action. Poison was errata'd such that it only lasts for a single hit, but this errata only went to the DMG. Weapons and weapon attacks are different things, and not all weapon attacks are made with actual weapons. It's not clear whether you can take your hand off of a two-handed weapon to cast a spell with one hand. It's not clear whether a mage slayer needs to be aware of a spell in order to react to it. It's not clear that athletics only applies to strength checks that have to do with climbing, jumping, swimming, and grappling. You can't help with an action you can't perform, unless it's the attack action which apparently is an exception according to sage advice. And on and on.

Worst of all, the PHB is poorly organized such that it's easy to miss things, and has a ton of variant rules that should have gone in the DMG. All these years later, some people still don't know about the Variant: Skills with Different Abilities in the PHB. This is a DM call, and so many people missed it that we recently had a whole thread proposing the concept. Meanwhile, things that should be in the PHB, like the timing of reactions, are only in the DMG.

Another one just popped up in a different thread about dominate person vs planar binding. The wording of the latter, "strives to twist your words," confused some people as to how the former works, making them think that all dominate effects produce a knowing and unwilling victim. Spells have always been complex since no two of them work in exactly the same way. 5e does nothing to make them more approachable. Maybe WotC just wanted to sell us spell cards.

I hope I've made my point clear.

[KorvinStarmast]

I really don't like the "official ruling" label for twitter output. I don't think WoTC does that. They do seem to hold as official any of that kind of material that gets folded into the SA compendium that is posted on the WoTC site.


I see a lot more than you seen to give me credit for. See my original post, where I directly stated that sage advice is RAI. Which SA: that which is later put into the SA compendium, or all of the tweet responses? I agree with you on the latter.

As to the "relearn the rules" hyperbole. The vast majority of the rules don't have odd quirks of interpretation. Selected cases now and again need a ruling. I once again wish to point out that 'relearn the rules' is either a red herring, or simple hyperbole. (I am not sure which, it might be both.)

[Pex]

I don't think WoTC does that. They do seem to hold as official any of that kind of material that gets folded into the SA compendium that is posted on the WoTC site.

Which SA: that which is later put into the SA compendium, or all of the tweet responses? I agree with you on the latter.

As to the "relearn the rules" hyperbole. The vast majority of the rules don't have odd quirks of interpretation. Selected cases now and again need a ruling. I once again wish to point out that 'relearn the rules' is either a red herring, or simple hyperbole. (I am not sure which, it might be both.)

I don't need your permission.

[Easy_Lee]

Relearn the rules is not much of an exaggeration. I'm sure we can all think of a few mechanics per class with multiple rulings. Illusions, stealth (skills in general), valid uses of suggestion, great weapon fighting style and smites, assassinate and weapon cantrips, wildshaping into unlisted animals, actions that break invisibility, etc. It affects every class.

To reiterate, this happened in previous editions. But it happens much more so in 5e.

[Zalabim]

That's a case where I disagree with them. They're treating helping with attacks different from how they treat helping with anything else. And that's exactly the kind of thing I'm talking about. It's another 5e inconsistency.

The text can be interpreted either way. The sages picked one.

I don't know how to break this to you, but it sounds like you have a personal problem with the rules. You don't know them. At this point, that's something that's on you to solve.


the PHB is poorly organized such that it's easy to miss things, and has a ton of variant rules that should have gone in the DMG. All these years later, some people still don't know about the Variant: Skills with Different Abilities in the PHB. This is a DM call, and so many people missed it that we recently had a whole thread proposing the concept. Meanwhile, things that should be in the PHB, like the timing of reactions, are only in the DMG.
Obviously some of this is because the book isn't constructed well, physically. But many rules are there, and it reflects a bit on you as well if you're going to complain about the rules without knowing what they are after this many years. There are some things that are left to interpretation and table variation, but you're mixing in things that are just your own misunderstandings and making the issue look worse than it really is.


I think the main point of contention is whether a ruling that contradicts RAI is a house rule, or more accurately a house ruling. Calling it that implies that it isn't the normal ruling, which in turn implies that RAI is the normal ruling.

But this also hinges on people knowing the RAI. In cases where RAI isn't stated, I think a lot of us tend to assume we know more than we do about WotC's intent.
This can absolutely be true, but there's actually a lot of questions that come up where we do have RAI answers.

It's pragmatic. As we all know, keeping up with errata is difficult by itself. Keeping your book updated with errata (choose your method) is more difficult. Keeping up with sage advice is more difficult still. Keeping your book updated with errata and sage advice...well, I'm not sure that there's even one person out there who does this. I think you would need a binder.

It's more convenient to adopt a RAW-only mindset, or RAW + errata. We either have the book in its original form, or we have some modifications but nothing too crazy. That's doable. Convenience is no minor thing.
It is not impossible to read the book, a few pages of errata in total, and the officially published Sage Advice. More importantly, if you come across something that's unclear or have a corner-case question, it's perfectly reasonable to check Sage Advice for an answer before you come to the GitP forum to complain about it, internet being internet and all.

This is why I brought up pragmatism in regards to sage advice. We might expect players to keep up with errata, but it is beyond optimistic to expect them to keep up with sage advice. If this was true in previous editions, it is more so now due to the sheer volume of tweets and SA articles.

It's not a matter of what is best, but what people will actually do. If RAI becomes the gold standard, and sage advice is RAI, then players will end up playing different versions of the game. No two players, let alone tables, will have the exact same understanding of sage advice.

Which, again, is why I wish 5e's rules had been more consistent and clear in the first place.
Same as above, really. All I'd ask is for a player to know the rules for their own character.

The most common example I've seen given: can a familiar Help with the attack action and provide advantage? Try asking a few AL DMs. I've heard yes, yes but a creature will just kill the familiar if it does, and no (which is think is the correct answer for non chain-locks, because familiars can't attack).
Familiars can take the Help action. That much is obvious. The section that starts "Alternately" and applies to "attack rolls" does not reference the earlier section in using ability checks and working together for advantage on "ability checks." Ability checks and attack rolls are different.

This is a good spot to say that most of the rules are more self-contained. For any interaction between two abilities, the answer can usually be derived by reading just those two abilities, like Help and Find Familiar. There's some exceptions, but it's usually this simple.

In 5e, no one knows how the rules work because they depend on the DM. Additionally, players have to remember what's an opportunity attack vs a reaction attack, what's reach vs 5 feet, whether X bonus action can be taken only after Y action, which spells have concentration, and the specific rules on every ability they use. Nothing is written using consistent language. As shown time and again, every ability in 5e has to be analyzed on its own.
In my experience, that makes questions easier to answer.


For proof, just look at the RAW thread. Hundreds of posts in, and it isn't even our first one. People don't agree on or fully understand the rules. I don't think that's an opinion; at this point, it's as close to fact as it can be.
It's true, but the solution is to spread knowledge, not just throw up my hands and call it impossible.

Similarly, players may take actions on their turn and reactions outside their turn. That's very clear. Some reactions occur during the trigger (protection fighting style, opportunity attacks provoked by movement) and others occur after. That isn't clear at all, because the reactions themselves don't directly say. Most of 5e's mechanics fall in the latter camp.
Reactions can take place on your own turn. Each reaction that occurs before the trigger or interrupts the triggering event says so. All reactions that can take place after the trigger do (as the word reaction implies and the DMG says outright.)

One more example: recently, I informed another poster that athletics only covers climbing, jumping, swimming, and grappling / pushing. The rules say that, but don't make it clear. He and countless other players didn't even realize it.
In the incident I recall, the poster simply didn't realize that the rules said that about athletics, but thought it was perfectly clear after reading the rule (to an irritating degree even). The problem was players not reading the rule in the first place.


That's a case where I disagree with them. They're treating helping with attacks different from how they treat helping with anything else. And that's exactly the kind of thing I'm talking about. It's another 5e inconsistency.

The text can be interpreted either way. The sages picked one.
They're treating them differently because they are different. It's not a different interpretation. Working Together applies to ability checks. Working together in combat requires taking the Help action. Alternatively, you can use the Help action to give someone advantage on an attack roll. Again, just read the ability to see how it works. It isn't necessary to read the entire book to understand how Helping someone attack works.

Another one just popped up in a different thread about dominate person vs planar binding. The wording of the latter, "strives to twist your words," confused some people as to how the former works, making them think that all dominate effects produce a knowing and unwilling victim.
No, you were the only one confused there. They'd already said Dominate wouldn't be limited by that, but Planar Binding would.

Relearn the rules is not much of an exaggeration. I'm sure we can all think of a few mechanics per class with multiple rulings. Illusions, stealth (skills in general), valid uses of suggestion, great weapon fighting style and smites, assassinate and weapon cantrips,
I'm not sure I want to know what people have a problem with here.

[Millstone85]

Something that annoys me is stealth errata. Not changes to the rules of stealth but changes between printings of the PHB that are not described in the errata PDF.

Let's look at the Help action again. The text is divided in two paragraphs. The first paragraph talks about giving advantage on an ability check, then there is the "alternatively" paragraph about giving advantage on an attack roll. The rule that you need to be able to do the task yourself appears in another part of the book, which is about ability checks.

I am away from it at the moment, but I am pretty sure that, in my copy of the PHB, the first paragraph of the Help action tells you to read that other part of the book. So when the "alternatively" paragraph comes, it is (a tiny bit) clearer that it is its own separate thing. But that's not in the 1st-printing PHB, and the errata PDF makes no mention of the change.

[JBPuffin]

I'm not going to lie, all of my DMs have had similar understandings of the rules (largely because they're written down and in the end, their main goal is letting everyone have their fun, not quibbling about technicalities like myself and the forums :smallbiggrin:), and while there are definitely some house rules (crits - first year and a half of 5e, my DMs could not decide how they wanted to do crits), they stay pretty consistent between groups despite the lack of interconnection (consensus on hous-ruled crits has been max damage on original dice, then roll again and add). RAW vs RAI vs Sage Advice have shown me ways of analyzing the text I had never considered (Magic Missile + Twilight Druid b/c you rule damage once for all your missiles, for example) and expanded my homebrewer's arsenal as a result, but sometimes I come into a thread and just shake my head at the ridiculousness of both sides. Debate is one thing; mad ramblings on both sides is another, and believe me, it's happened more than once >.> :smallsigh:.

[KorvinStarmast]

I don't need your permission. Of course, you can say what you like. The problem with using overstatement is that it doesn't support the case or point you are trying to make, or advocate for. Let us agree to disagree on our perceived severity of what rules ambiguity, and thus the need for a ruling, does for play.

[Easy_Lee]

I don't know how to break this to you, but it sounds like you have a personal problem with the rules. You don't know them. At this point, that's something that's on you to solve.

This is just a way of dismissing an argument so you don't have to address it. Believe me, I know the rules. And that's an important point: disagreeing with sage doesn't mean you don't know the rules. It means you interpreted things differently.

Again, roll back up to death of the author. You may not like death of the author. But that doesn't mean you get to dismiss everyone who follows it.

Me personally, I'm not out to stop anyone's fun or rewrite the game. I just want consistency so I don't have to explain the rules to players. The PHB could be half as long and end up with more options and better reader comprehension.

[smcmike]

This is just a way of dismissing an argument so you don't have to address it. Believe me, I know the rules. And that's an important point: disagreeing with sage doesn't mean you don't know the rules. It means you interpreted things differently.

Again, roll back up to death of the author. You may not like death of the author. But that doesn't mean you get to dismiss everyone who follows it.

Me personally, I'm not out to stop anyone's fun or rewrite the game. I just want consistency so I don't have to explain the rules to players. The PHB could be half as long and end up with more options and better reader comprehension.

If you really want consistency, the best thing to do is simply follow Sage Advice, right?

I do agree with some of your critique. The rules are not as clear as they could or should be in places. Particularly, I don't like the organization of the PHB much.

[Zalabim]

This is just a way of dismissing an argument so you don't have to address it.
It would be a lot easier to just quote the first line of a post and ignore the rest.

[Rhedyn]

Sage Advice is just a House Rule that you copied from a tweet.

[KorvinStarmast]

The existence of rules lawyers, in real life or in games, doesn't make a law unclear. It just means that people will twist things however they can in order to win. If we're honest with ourselves, we all pretty much understand the law. Lawyers and politicians often twist the law, which is why those professions catch so much heat. Bob Dylan had a neat song lyric about justice being a game ... but I think he meant "the criminal justice system" by that.
The main flaw of postmodernists is their inability to understand relativity. Postmodernism started with the observation that there are an infinite number of ways to interpret a thing. That's true. Anything can be interpreted an infinite number of ways. They then concluded that all interpretations are valid. That conclusion is false. I have a few ideas on who might want to leap on that hand grenade you just tossed there, but I am with you.
Applying this to D&D, we can all think of situations where a rules lawyer tried to interpret a rule in a way that didn't make sense. He argued that his interpretation is valid. He was right, too. But where he was wrong was in thinking that his interpretation was equally valid. We all knew the best interpretation, as did he. He just didn't want to accept it. Yep. Dave Arneson identified rules lawyers as the enemy. Over 40 years ago. I think he was on to something. The enemy of fun.
And that's what postmodernism and rules lawyering has in common. It's not an epistemological method. It's a debate tactic used to distract and try to get what you want. I might sig that.
5e encourages and enables more rules lawyering with its unclear rules. I'll argue that it includes more rulings, and that you can remove rules lawyering at your table by not putting up with it during play. (Both players and DM's get involved in this decision is a good way) Discuss/argue, and resolve rules interpretations before or after play - not during. We figured this out 40 years ago in college, after we'd all taken our turn as the rules lawyer of the moment. And all of us felt that fun suffered for it. So we adopted that convention: any rule you wanted to argue about you presented before, or after, play. During play you got one warning (usually from a peer) and after that you were asked to leave that session. And guess what? We had a lot of fun and the games moved a lot more smoothely.

Sage Advice is just a House Rule that you copied from a tweet. Nope, the published ones on the WoTC site are couched as official rulings. A ruling is not a house rule, it's a DM doing what a DM is supposed to do. That's in my sig as well, and it's clearly consistent with what's written in the text of the rules in PHB, MM, and DMG.

The rulings that come from tweets that don't get folded into the SA at WoTC are basically assistance to GM's and players. Anyone can choose to adopt that ruling, or choose not to, without being accused of homebrew.

[Rhedyn]

Sage advice is garbage and any DM that blindly follows it is only making their games worse and less RAW.

[smcmike]

Sage advice is garbage and any DM that blindly follows it is only making their games worse and less RAW.

Are "worse" and "less RAW" the same thing for you?

Also, I'm realizing that "RAW," as most people use it, actually means "consistent with the Rules As Written", as opposed to refering to the rules themselves. It's a garbage term.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Sage advice is garbage and any DM that blindly follows it is only making their games worse and less RAW.

And ipse dixit (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ipse_dixit) is always persuasive. You're stating issues of taste (personal preference) as if they're fact.

[Easy_Lee]

And ipse dixit (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ipse_dixit) is always persuasive. You're stating issues of taste (personal preference) as if they're fact.

I think that's the point, though. Sage advice is rulings. Some people consider those rulings to be above normal rulings, others don't.

But we have all seen people say "that doesn't work" in response to a thing, then reference SA as the reason. If SA is just rulings, then that shouldn't happen. People should just say they disagree with the ruling. But they don't. Many treat sage advice as if it was RAW, and accuse anyone who doesn't follow it of using house rules.

Is sage advice above a regular ruling? That's my question. Some people treat it that way, others think sa is garbage.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I think that's the point, though. Sage advice is rulings. Some people consider those rulings to be above normal rulings, others don't.

But we have all seen people say "that doesn't work" in response to a thing, then reference SA as the reason. If SA is just rulings, then that shouldn't happen. People should just say they disagree with the ruling. But they don't. Many treat sage advice as if it was RAW, and accuse anyone who doesn't follow it of using house rules.

Is sage advice above a regular ruling? That's my question. Some people treat it that way, others think sa is garbage.

And some people believe the earth is flat (no really). Doesn't change the truth.

What I was objecting to is the lack of any reasoning in declaring something to be garbage. If he had said "I don't like (and so don't use) SA," that would be fine with me. It doesn't really bug me what others do at their tables. What I object to is the flat declaration that anyone who follows SA is making their game worse and that all SA is garbage.

My position has always been that there are no rules, only rulings--the only thing that matters is what happens at a specific table. Those rulings should (in my opinion) be based in the text and errata, but doing otherwise is up to the table in question. Focusing on RAW (which is a forum-created, non-RAW thing in this edition) is a red herring. It provides no substance except as a club to hit people who disagree. Note that in 5e (unlike 3.5) there is no "primary source" rule nor is there a "text trumps table" rule. DMs (along with their tables) are supposed to use their judgement and make rulings, applying the text, errata, and whatever other sources they decide they want to include to the situation at hand.

[smcmike]

Is sage advice above a regular ruling? That's my question. Some people treat it that way, others think sa is garbage.

What "regular rulings" are you comparing it to?

Is it above a ruling of the DM at your table? No, not unless the table has agreed to abide by Sage Advice.

Does it deserve more weight than the ruling of some anonymous person on Reddit? I think so.

Is there some other sort of "regular ruling?"

[Easy_Lee]

What "regular rulings" are you comparing it to?

Is it above a ruling of the DM at your table? No, not unless the table has agreed to abide by Sage Advice.

Does it deserve more weight than the ruling of some anonymous person on Reddit? I think so.

Is there some other sort of "regular ruling?"

That's the question. In good faith, we have to assume the ruling of some anonymous person on Reddit is the ruling of a DM. Sage advice is at least on par with that. Is it above?

I think of SA as default rulings. I guarantee no DM will follow every ruling on SA, but most DMs will probably follow most of them. In that regard, SA might be useful on forums to say "many DMs will rule it this way."

But SA should never be treated as RAW. And yet it is, because it's seen as RAI, and some people think RAI and RAW are the same.

[smcmike]

That's the question. In good faith, we have to assume the ruling of some anonymous person on Reddit is the ruling of a DM. Sage advice is at least on par with that. Is it above?

Yes. Of course, random commenters might make a convincing argument, but the interpretation of the game designers starts with additional weight in my book.



I think of SA as default rulings. I guarantee no DM will follow every ruling on SA, but most DMs will probably follow most of them. In that regard, SA might be useful on forums to say "many DMs will rule it this way."

But SA should never be treated as RAW. And yet it is, because it's seen as RAI, and some people think RAI and RAW are the same.

Which is why we should do away with acronyms, and talk about what the books say, what we think that means, and what the designers have said about it.

[KorvinStarmast]

I think of SA as default rulings. I guarantee no DM will follow every ruling on SA, but most DMs will probably follow most of them. In that regard, SA might be useful on forums to say "many DMs will rule it this way."
That's a sane approach. Sadly, this is the internet ... :smallbiggrin:

[Sigreid]

I think of SA as default rulings. I guarantee no DM will follow every ruling on SA, but most DMs will probably follow most of them. In that regard, SA might be useful on forums to say "many DMs will rule it this way."


I have one quibble with this. I would bet that the majority of DM's actually don't pay any attention to Sage Advice or forums. I bet there are plenty that aren't even aware that there is such a thing as Sage Advice.

[Easy_Lee]

I have one quibble with this. I would bet that the majority of DM's actually don't pay any attention to Sage Advice or forums. I bet there are plenty that aren't even aware that there is such a thing as Sage Advice.

Regarding that quibble, most of the Sage rulings are what you would expect based on a reading of the rules. That's why I say most DMs follow most rulings, even though I'm aware that most DMs probably don't keep up with SA. It's only the occasional SA ruling that has something way out that makes me scratch my head.

[Rhedyn]

Are "worse" and "less RAW" the same thing for you?

Also, I'm realizing that "RAW," as most people use it, actually means "consistent with the Rules As Written", as opposed to refering to the rules themselves. It's a garbage term.
Nope. Separate claims.

SA will both make your game worse and function less as the Rules As Written.

It's basically a collection of bad houserules that the unfortunate will mindlessly ape. ANY ruling you make at your own table is better than referencing SA even if that ruling ends up being the same (a broken clock is right twice a day).

[KorvinStarmast]

SA will both make your game worse and function less as the Rules As Written. That is the direct opposite of our groups' experience. (plural). We've found it mostly helpful, with a few eye rolls.

[Sigreid]

Regarding that quibble, most of the Sage rulings are what you would expect based on a reading of the rules. That's why I say most DMs follow most rulings, even though I'm aware that most DMs probably don't keep up with SA. It's only the occasional SA ruling that has something way out that makes me scratch my head.

Eh, now we're talking about a distinction without a difference. Personally I wouldn't say people unaware of a SA ruling are following it, but the end result is the same so /shrug.